(DRAFT). [Excise Policy Scam] Objective Of My Arrest Is To Make A Non Level Playing Field: Kejriwal's Stance Before Delhi HC

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, before the Delhi High Court, argued that the arrest of Arvind Kejriwal was to make a non-level playing field for the upcoming 2024 Elections.

The Delhi High Court, on March 27, heard the petition of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal challenging his recent arrest and subsequent remand by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The matter was presided over by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that Kejriwal's arrest and custody were unlawful, demanding his immediate release. Sr Adv Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, countered by asserting that immediate action was imperative due to the impending conclusion of the remand period.

However, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, representing the Enforcement Directorate (ED), raised objections concerning the timely submission of the petition copy. ASG Raju emphasized the need for adequate time to prepare a response, suggesting a three-week timeline for the main petition and a reasonable duration for interim matters.

Sr Adv Singhvi contended that the arrest's fundamental basis needed examination and challenged the necessity and timing of the arrest, especially in the context of ongoing elections.

Sr Adv Singhvi raised concerns about the lack of a Section 50 PMLA statement and questioned the motives behind the arrest, alleging a disruption of democratic processes. He highlighted on several legal points, including the necessity criteria for arrests under Section 19 of the PMLA, the misuse of non-cooperation as grounds for custody, and the selective presentation of evidence by the ED. Singhvi further contended, “There are two statements. Both are not against me. Now comes a statement after arrest. Reddy continues to maintain a stance not against me after arrest in nine statements. This is shocking. These statements are not put in any of the six complaints… Same trick of unrelied documents".

Sr Adv Singhvi underscored that the standard for making an arrest under section 19 PMLA was deliberately set at a high level. This is because obtaining bail under section 45 is not possible. Thus, before carrying out an arrest, it is necessary to form an opinion as the threshold requirement is quite stringent. He further highlighted, “These three phrases go towards the basic point of a clear demonstration of necessity to arrest. Necessity to arrest is the vital concept. You may have the power to arrest but the power isn't equal to necessity to arrest nor does it reflect the necessity to arrest”.

Sr Adv Singhvi argued that if ED intended to investigate Kejriwal’s actions in February 2024, which occurred two months before the election, there was no need for his arrest. He pointed out that ED was uncertain about Kejriwal’s specific role and could have conducted the investigation without resorting to arrest. “On the cusp of election you arrest me. What Is it that you couldn't have done without my arrest that you arrest me”, he added.

Sr Adv Singhvi cited various judicial precedents and argued against arbitrary arrests and the manipulation of legal processes for political ends. He highlighted instances of alleged abuse of power by the ED, pointing out discrepancies in the handling of evidence and the treatment of co-accused individuals. He argued, “Statements are suppressed saying unrelied documents. Making a mockery of fairness. The man sinks and after 18 months... Nine days after the statement against me, he gets bail on medical grounds, no opposition by ED. Later he gets pardon. Repetitive process of abusing criminal law”.

ASG Raju emphasized the need for extra time to prepare a response, explaining the sequence of events to the Bench, including attempts to obtain a copy and the subsequent delay in response from the opposing party.

Advocate Farasat, representing Kejriwal, contested ASG Raju's claims. He asserted that they promptly filed the petition and were assured of a timely hearing by the registry.

ASG Raju responded by alleging deliberate delays in providing essential documents. He highlighted procedural issues and stressed the importance of a fair process.

Case Title: Arvind Kejriwal v Enforcement Directorate (WP crl 985/2024)